Republicans claim excess government spending hobbles the economy and fosters dependence. Lower taxes will stimulate the economy and benefit everyone. Democrats claim that investment in the public sector will raise all boats, and those in the educational establishment are always claiming under funding. Both, it appears, are wrong.

This story shows that, as of a few years ago, New York maintained its standing as first in the nation — by a large margin — in per capita school spending. While some argue that the spending is not evenly distributed, per capita spending in the New York City is even higher. Results are nowhere near the top. By most measures, New York ranks mid-pack among the states, or even below. How, then, can education in New York be under funded? I would like to see a direct response from one or more of the teachers’ unions or their lobbying arm, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity.

This story, among many others, details how the tax cutting experiment in Kansas failed so badly to stimulate the economy, and in doing so, hurt the most vulnerable, that the legislature there repealed it and overrode the Governor’s veto. No comment from the Koch brothers or any other conservative think tank.

What do these stories have in common? They both prove that conventional wisdom of whatever ideological bent is likely wrong. Simple solutions simply don’t work to solve complicated problems. They prove that we need to hear less from special interests on each side of the aisle and more from moderate, thoughtful people who will seek to apply tailored, empirically based solutions to societal problems, and not continue policies that have proven to be ineffective.

This recent column in the New York Times summarizes some studies on charters, and sheds some interesting light. Apparently, the charters that do the best (and not all even do well) are those that stress the basics — longer days, more support for teachers and students and imposition of high standards.

Aside from reflecting what appears to me to be common sense, these values contrast with those present in many conventional public schools, where shorter work days and more insulation from accountability are the goals of the teachers, as expressed through collective bargaining and political action (many individual teachers put in extra time and strive for excellence, even after achieving tenure). While I understand teachers’ perceived need for some job protections, and while I believe most tenure “abuses” are caused by management that does not terminate probationary teachers who are unlikely to be successful, there still is a disconnect between the positions of advocates of traditional education and those of the best, successful charters.

If competition produces better results for all, and if charters are to fulfill their original mission as laboratories in which successful teaching methods can be developed and tested, both systems need support.

This New York Post story suggests that NYC charters have worked a miracle — closing the heretofore intractable racial achievement gap, and outperforming even affluent conventional public schools. If this is true, why haven’t other news outlets picked up the story? If it’s not true, in whole or in part, why hasn’t anyone refuted it?

I don’t think charters are miracle workers, and I am somewhat skeptical of reports of huge successes. But I also think they do a lot of things better than conventional public schools (which are adapting to meet the competition), such as providing greater support and a longer school day and year. Charter students are also more likely to come from more supportive homes, since parents need to take many affirmative actions to have their children attend charter schools.

This little item in the Albany Times Union (the longer story linked to in the item is behind the paper’s pay wall) about the burden of rising pension costs is unusual only because of the employer — NYSUT, the teachers’ union. NYSUT’s own management is clearly aware of the burdensome costs of benefits for its own employees, and its officers appear to be willing to take a cut while they negotiate similar cuts with their employees’ union.

Of course, NYSUT’s role as bargaining representative for its members is different from its role as an employer, and it is charged by law to represent its members’ interests. In playing that role in contract negotiations, I don’t think NYSUT would be receptive to the concept of givebacks by its members.

What I suspect I won’t see is any of the school districts asking for the kind of givebacks NYSUT appears to believe warranted with respect to its employees (and leading the way by imposing them on their own staff). One reason for public employee unions’ great success has been the lack of aggressive counter parties representing the taxpayers in contract negotiations, though I am sure the School Boards’ Association would argue to the contrary. There are many reasons for this: the understandable urge (especially when spending other peoples’ money) to show appreciation for the good work teachers do, the large financial and political clout of the unions, and the fact that the better the deal for teachers, the better the deal for management, who must of course, be paid more than the rank and file in the trenches. Of course, in a competitive market for teachers, salary and benefits must be competitive, but smart management would make sure they were regardless of union pressure.

Recently, a caller to one of our local public broadcasting stations expressed the dilemma of wanting to support local public education but wanting to remain in his house, which was becoming increasingly less affordable due to rising school taxes, among other things. The moderator pooh-poohed him with the usual response — “nothing’s too good for our kids.”

Like that caller, I see both sides, and I certainly don’t want to return to the days of exploitation of teachers. However, I wonder who is representing this taxpayer, and how strongly. Only when both sides have equal bargaining power can a reasonable balance of interests be struck.